Srinagar, Nov 13: In O.A./1013/2023 (SRINAGAR) titled MUSHTAQ AHMAD GANIE Vs DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES after hearing CAT ordered as:
1. Vide order dated 29.08.2025, learned counsel for the respondents was directed to process the release of provisional pension in favour of the petitioner within two weeks positively, failing which, the Chief Medical Officer, Ganderbal, was to be present in person before this Court.
The personal presence was sought in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in order to uphold the rule of law. He was further directed to show cause as to why, in terms of law, contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him, in view of the fact that despite the direction passed by this Court earlier, the same has not been complied with.
2. Today, the matter came up for consideration. The provisional pension of the petitioner has not been processed; however, learned counsel for the respondents has filed one more reply in addition to the earlier reply filed on 15.05.2025.
A copy of the newly filed reply dated 12.11.2025 has already been provided to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to para-8 of the reply dated 12.11.2025, wherein it has been averred that the regularization of the petitioner was made vide G.O. No. 544-HME of 1991 dated 05.07.1991; however, the applicant does not figure in this G.O. No. 544- HME of 1991 dated 05.07.1991. Reference has been made by the Chief Medical Officer while regularizing the services of the petitioner.
A photostat copy of the said Government Order is appended with the reply.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the instant reply cannot be taken on record in law. However, in my humble estimation, if a fact is brought to the knowledge of the Court at any point of time which ultimately aids in the just and lawful disposal of the matter, there is no objection to taking the same on record, as ultimately cases have to be decided on merits and on the material available on file.
5. Para-8 of the reply dated 12.11.2025 filed by the Chief Medical Officer categorically states that the petitioner herein does not figure in G.O. No. 544-HME of 1991 dated 05.07.1991.
In addition, learned counsel for the respondents submits that fraud vitiates any sort of equity. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, was given an option to rebut the averments made in the reply as regards the non-inclusion of the petitioner in G.O. No. 544-HME of 1991 dated 05.07.1991.
To this effect, he submits that he would like to respond to the same.
7. List this matter before the Division Bench on 15.12.2025 higher up.
8. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the respondents shall produce the original copy of G.O. No. 544-HME of 1991 dated 05.07.1991, as in terms of law, a photocopy, that too unattested by a competent authority, cannot be taken note of.
|